Oopps; looping in the list... On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jan Nielsen <jan.sture.niel...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Robert Klemme < > shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Jan Nielsen >> <jan.sture.niel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > We are considering the following drive allocations: >> > >> > * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN for PG data >> > * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN for PG indexes >> > * 2 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 1 on SAN for PG xlog >> > * 1 x 15k SAS drive, XFS, on local storage for OS >> >> Is it established practice in the Postgres world to separate indexes >> from tables? I would assume that the reasoning of Richard Foote - >> albeit for Oracle databases - is also true for Postgres: > > >> >> http://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/separate-indexes-from-tables-some-thoughts-part-i-everything-in-its-right-place/ >> >> http://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/separate-indexes-from-tables-some-thoughts-part-ii-there-there/ >> >> http://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/indexes-in-their-own-tablespace-availabilty-advantages-is-there-anybody-out-there/ > > > Very nice articles! > > >> Conversely if you lump both on a single volume you have more >> flexibility with regard to usage - unless of course you can >> dynamically resize volumes. >> > > Agreed. > > >> To me it also seems like a good idea to mirror local disk with OS and >> database software because if that fails you'll get downtime as well. >> As of now you have a single point of failure there. >> > > Agreed as well. > > These are good improvements - thanks for the review and references, Robert. > > > Cheers, > > Jan > > > >> >> Kind regards >> >> robert >> >> -- >> remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end >> http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org >> ) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >> > >
